Talk:Abortion

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by RoyBoy (talk | contribs) at 23:01, 4 September 2011 (→‎Pictures?: reinsert lead discussion). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Former good articleAbortion was one of the Natural sciences good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
December 26, 2006Good article nomineeListed
January 14, 2008Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article

Template:WP1.0

Archive
Archives
Chronological archives

Archives

Topical subpages
Notable precedents in discussion


Lead sentence opposition

The lead section options section has indicated multiple options. I've tried to list them here in order of most supported, to least. Here we should discuss / list opposing reasons for each option in an attempt to remove some of the options. The emphasis, in my opinion, is on the functionality of the definition and adherence to Wikipedia policy and our goals.

At the last second, I've added "Oppose reasons", the intent is to put point form problems with the lead option; the points can be tweaked and expanded as necessary (hence not signed) please re-sign if modified. But a consensus is needed to strike out a reason, with a followup signed rationale for removal. (see below for my example attempt, anyone can unstrike and say why) An RFC can be listed for this. Hopefully by September we can at least agree on what we don't prefer. Oh and please comment on possible tweaks to remove your opposition to an option. - RoyBoy 04:56, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Termination before viable

Oppose reasons

  • While complete for medical text(s), it is too narrow a definition for a generalist encyclopedia. Wikipedia should include exceptions. Or simply: Wikipedia is not a dictionary / medical text.RoyBoy 03:44, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per WP:Lead, "In general, specialized terminology and symbols should be avoided...." Many medical and non-medical sources use a broader definition, and it's not NPOV to favor the narrower specialist terminology, or use it to limit the scope of the article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 09:46, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not going to mince my words here - this is weak factually, it would be intellectually dishonest [we know that third trimester abortions do take place and can be legally performed up to full term in some jurisdictions and that they are called abortions and are abortions regardless of the stage of development of the fetus, or it's ability to survive outside the womb]. Lacking in content [no mention of baby/embryo/fetus or mother/female], and bad semantically and gramatically. Would set a very poor example for an encyclopedic definition.DMSBel (talk) 23:28, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Termination with medical clarification

Oppose reasons

  • "usually" is a weasel word we should avoid. Used in Britannica; and there are unknowns we cannot rigidly define. - RoyBoy 03:44, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*This would include induced labor and birth.Anythingyouwant (talk) 09:51, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • FYI, I changed "loss" to "termination" and "destruction" to "removal or expulsion". - RoyBoy 03:44, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Removing "destruction" now makes the definition so broad that it could cover live birth. After "embryo" I would add "and its demise". The word "demise" is not merely a synonym for "death". Sometimes it means death, but it can also simply mean termination.Anythingyouwant (talk) 10:25, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • I came back to this definition with those very concerns. Demise cannot be used because it requires personhood (while death/destruction doesn't). I have put destruction back, and switched "a" to "the". Thanks for the feedback. Well, looking here demise does seem appropriate, but here it seems not appropriate. - RoyBoy 17:28, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Your second link doesn't seem convincing, because if you click on "more" you'll see that Google Dictionary has met its, uh, demise. Google Dictionary is not a reliable source. I can support "destruction", though.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:04, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Current version

Oppose reasons

  • Repetitive "defined" and "termination of pregnancy"RoyBoy 03:44, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The goal of a lead is to broadly yet accurately define a topic, not relegate it to a secondary option.RoyBoy 03:44, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additionally, a reader might easily think that inducing a premature labor qualifies as terminating pregnancy before birth, so it would be clearer to say "other than birth" instead of "before birth".Anythingyouwant (talk) 09:59, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Previous death consensus

Oppose reasons

  • Death has a dual meaning, broadly it fits; but in common usage it implies an individual / person has died.RoyBoy 03:50, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • In a small minority of medical definitions.RoyBoy 03:50, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not NPOV unless the "viable" definition is also provided somewhere in the article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 10:15, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The word "demise" would be better, it's a broader word than "death", not merely synonymous.Anythingyouwant (talk) 10:15, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • While I get it, death is correctly defined once at Wikipedia. It seems easier to understand than viable, so we preferred it in 2006. - RoyBoy 03:50, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Death is blunt, simple and straightforward, but it's not used when tonsils are removed. Tonsils are not really a distinct organism, whereas a fetus/embryo is regarded as a distinct organism, or at least a parasitic distinct organism. The word "death" has strong connotations, perhaps suggesting brain death, which is an organ that may not yet have formed in the embryo. The word "demise" is much better; it sometimes means death but can also simply mean termination.Anythingyouwant (talk) 10:15, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is straightforward and clear as a formal definition, there is nothing counterfactual here in regard to what an abortion basically is. Some may regard a fetus/embryo as a parasitic organism, it is incorrect though as parasites are from a species different to the host species. In origin and manner the dependent intrauterine relationship of baby on its mother is not the same as parasite on a host. I don't see a NPOV issue or a need to give more than one definition as viability will be mentioned in the article, but is non-essential to a formal definition. DMSBel (talk) 01:57, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't regard it as parasatic. My point was merely that some people do regard it that way, and as far as I know there's no dispute about whether parasites end in death. Of course they do.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:58, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • We had this discussion already a million times. Consensus by posting until other editors give up and go away is not strictly forbidden, but there is a time to just leave things as they are and walk away. NW (Talk) 03:50, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Talk page discussion is rarely discouraged regarding how we can get a consensus that allows removal of a disputed tag. Only three or so editors have even commented about whether "termination before birth" might be misunderstood to include premature labor induction, for example. No one likes endless discussions, but that's often what happens when high-profile articles are substantially changed without any consensus whatsoever for the changes (as happened here). I can support changes and compromises here, but the thing is not settled yet.Anythingyouwant (talk) 09:58, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with Anythingyouwant. The removal of death was non-consensual, supported with bogus (anti-scientific) arguments and anyone who dissented was/is accused of being a right-wing religious nut-case. We should revert back to the 2006 death consensus.-- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 11:25, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's worse than that. The original section for comments was repeatedly changed--statements modified after people had voted for them--and it continues to happen here. There has been a long discussion to get to the current stable version and any discussion not starting with that is just another attempt to get the much-loved 2006 version back in. If a discussion of this form is to work it needs to include statements that are not modified during the discussion of them, just for starters. Waiting until a stable version was reached then trying to get it thrown out and the old, old version restored is just another delaying tactic in hopes of wearing out the editors on the other side. It isn't an honest attempt to reach consensus. JJL (talk) 15:26, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • A 48 hour straw poll qualifies as a honest attempt? If changes to unsigned proposals are noted, transparency remains, this is the Wiki-process. "stable version" is that another joke? Motive guessing again, I waited for the "Lead section options" to slow then proceeded to construct an actual consensus. The current lead is messy and (I think) undermines the whole point of a lead (to define something broadly once), if you want to keep it, fine. I'd like to verify this is what the community actually wants / expect; they'll likely want the "termination before viable" version... well I certainly hope not. - RoyBoy 04:53, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • But it wasn't structured very well, like the current lead. If the current version holds its own re WP:Lead, then there is no change required. Besides, if things were "left as they are", we would be forced to revisit every year. That possibility is preposterous to me, but if you're willing to sign up then awesome fantastic! BTW, NW do you find "demise" okay, or equally poor / misleading as "death"? - RoyBoy 04:59, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Misleading is a bit strong; perhaps "imprecise" describes my feelings towards it a bit better. In any case, can we postpone this discussion until after the Arbitration case concludes? I plan to request some sort of binding mediation structure imposed by the Arbitration Committee and administered by an uninvolved editor/admin, which I think might help us. NW (Talk) 14:58, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the clarification. No worries, this section has long intentions; and it can float... opening an RfC to get more voices in this section could help. However, there is no rush. - RoyBoy 01:52, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

I have reinserted the above thread to keep it visible while the pending arbitration runs its course. - RoyBoy 23:01, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures?

The pics that are on this page are very shallow. I suggest uploading something from here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.120.193.26 (talk) 05:30, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image

Why has a fetus picture been put back into this article? I don't see this being talked over and agreed on in any of the newer discussions above. When it was discussed a couple of months ago it was agreed images like this one don't belong in this article because it isn't neutral and the medical ethics of using them are debatable.This picture is even worse in that regard because the fetus appears to be on carpet or some kind of textile object. Do medical textbooks typically include pictures of objects on the floor? Putting something on the floor is a very amateur way to take a picture of it. It's what you do when you're trying to sell something on ebay and don't have any other flat surface around. That seriously calls into question the professionalism behind this picture. Do we really want such a sensitive article like this to include such low quality images? Friend of the Facts (talk) 21:24, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The ethics of this one are a bit different than the other image, I think. The uploader has uploaded many medical images to Wikimedia Commons and presumably is a physician. I would think we should contact him and see if he can provide additional information about when and where he took the image and what consent he obtained from the mother. NW (Talk) 23:36, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I understand and respect that images like this one produce some overwhleming emotions from viewers: mothers, fathers, relatives of miscarriage patients, etc. Photos like these are not intended to hide the validation of life and loss behind the "medicalization" of the experience.[1] Nevertheless science is uncensored. The fetus in question has 11 weeks estimated gestational age and laying on a pathologist's lab over a surgical mesh provided by the institution that attended the mother. I am sorry that medicine isn't apologetic about what "appears to be". Everyone involved in taking the picture and following the postmortem protocols are professionals and trained for that purpose. The photo was taken with the camera of a cytology tech. There are no identifiable features of this fetus that distinguish it as an individual nor are there any legal identity documents for this or any fetus delivered under 20 weeks of gestation. But there are very characteristic features of fetal development to be contrasted with this image for example, making the image (and others like it) of esteemed educational value, especially under CreativeCommons. The image is not placed here as prouncement of pro- or anti-abortion discourses, since the delivery was produced as a spontaneous end of a pregnancy. Rather it was taken and uploaded with a documentary approach, that's why I placed it within the context of a miscarriage. So, in this case, education legitimates the decision to add the image. Sorry I missed talking about it here, as I did minutes before with another image. --Bobjgalindo (talk) 01:43, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comment. I'm not sure if you saw a few weeks ago Commons:Deletion requests/File:Human fetus 10 weeks - therapeutic abortion.jpg, but I would appreciate it if you could take a look. I definitely agree with you that there is a great deal of useful educational value with this image, and also that it is unlikely that this image would be deleted. However, I do think that there are ethical issues that bar us from using the image in a mainspace article without prior consent (see, for example, the position of the American College of Medical Genetics, which is the only one in that essay to mention fetuses). NW (Talk) 02:10, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected on the picture's origin. The background does look like some type of textile to me and that called into question whether it was taken under informal conditions (say by a woman who had a miscarriage at home) and whether whoever took it had the the expertise to accurately judge gestational age etc.

That said the issue of fetus pictures in this article has been discussed a lot and we don't really need to open that can of worms again. Roscelese brings up a very good point in his edit summary. This article isn't just about miscarriage but also induced abortion. Things that may be appropriate in the miscarriage article may not be ok here. And fetus pictures definitely don't belong in an article about abortion for reasons that have already been discussed. They're fine in the fetus article or the pregnancy article but the abortion article is a whole different ball game. Context is everything. If you look at encyclopedias comparable to Wikipedia very few of them are going to include a fetus picture in their entry on abortion. It'd be doing a disservice to the quality of Wikipedia to stray outside the standard set by other encyclopedias in this case. Friend of the Facts (talk) 03:06, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good summation of my argument as well. I don't have an opinion on including this picture in the miscarriage article (and since I don't think I've ever edited it, my opinion may not be worth much anyway), but the context is quite different here, both because of the previous lack of consensus to include images of abortion in the article, and more generally because of the history of images of fetuses being used in propaganda. I believe Bobjgalindo added it in good faith; I just don't think it's the right thing to do in this article. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:27, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Undent) The issue of showing readers what is aborted in an abortion is one of several issues now pending before Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee.[1] People may well be waiting to see what ArbCom has to say about it before contributing more ideas and arguments here at the article talk page.

There was an image of this sort in this article for over a year until it was edit-warred out of this article this summer. That edit-warring is summarized here. It seems pretty clear to me that this is an issue primarily of censorship; one of the leading edit-warriors explained that, "It's just a bunch of fucking cells you sanctimonious obsessive little fuck."[2]. Any image that might suggest otherwise has been removed from this article. There may also be sincere arguments that such an image requires the parents to identify themselves and sign a legal document authorizing publication, but those arguments were not accepted during the deletion debate at Wikimedia Commons, and it makes no sense to me that an image would not violate privacy at Wikimedia Commons but would at Wikipedia.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:09, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AYW, consensus can change, and the users in favor of including the picture into the article were edit-warring just as much as those opposed to including it. There is no consensus to include these images. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:17, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:Consensus, "More than a simple majority is generally required for major changes." There wasn't even a simple majority to remove the longstanding image. All there was was WP:BRRR.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:29, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Adding some images here isn't something I feel strongly about one way or another. This one seems more related to Fetus while the others present seem to relate better to Abortion. The other images already present in this article seem more directly related to this specific topic. JJL (talk) 04:08, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm kind of conflicted about this image for this article. I think Bobjgalindo's points are well made, and there is clear educational value in the image. At the same time, his post indicates (correct me if I'm wrong) that the image was taken, and uploaded, without the consent of the mother. That is a deal-breaker for me. It has nothing to do with whether the fetus is identifiable, but with more general ethical concerns similar to those outlined in the ACMG position statement linked by NW above. I acknowledge that this concern is not universally shared, but it's pretty fundamental to me. The Lancet piece (which was remarkable, by the way - thanks for linking it) underscores the centrality of this ethical concern, to my reading: "With parents' generous permission I am able to share some of my images in presentations, publications, and exhibitions." MastCell Talk 04:14, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Roscelese that Bobjgalindo probably added the image without being aware of the prior history of discussion on here and I'm sorry if my earlier comments suggested otherwise. The problem with having a fetus picture in this article is that an abortion involves many things -- fetus, placenta, pregnant woman, doctor (usually), surgical tools or drugs (usually). Why single out only the fetus to show? But this is the only thing involved in an abortion people seem to ever seem to bring up wanting to see in the article. There's editors who've been working to get a fetus picture in this article for years. In light of that fact I think it can be safely said that the main motivation behind calls for a fetus picture in the article is not strictly to provide educational/scientific information.

I think when it comes to image rights/permissions even if the patient gives consent to have the fetus photographed and used on Wikipedia doesn't mean they gave the green light to having the picture appear in the context of an article on abortion. For example imagine the parents of an 8 year old girl gave permission for a picture of her playing on swings at the park to be used on Wikipedia. They would presumably do so assuming that picture would be used in articles like "childhood" or "play" or "exercise" -- not in the pedophile article with the caption "child predators often look for children at public parks." I think we should be careful about the context we use pictures in. Pictures are basically given to Wikipedia as gifts and if we use them in ways that seem to take the contribution for granted it may discourage others from donating their pictures in the future. Friend of the Facts (talk) 05:28, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see any ethical concerns with having this image on Wikipedia. The fetus is not identifiable thus permission is not required in most jurisdictions. This is similar enough to taking a picture of any other pathological specimen. Whether this image should be included here in the body of the text or not I have no feeling one way of the other.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:51, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reference
  1. ^ Hochberg, Todd (16 April 2011). "Moments held—photographing perinatal loss". The Lancet,. 377 (9774): 1310–1311. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(11)60528-X. Retrieved 2011-08-23.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link)

Vandalism by NuclearWarfare

Or so it has been stated. Could someone take a look at this please? NW (Talk) 18:05, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if you were maybe asking for an admin to take a look, but I thought I'd comment anyway, for what it's worth. Your edit was clearly not vandalism, in my opinion. You gave a detailed and reasonable explanation in the edit summary, and even if another editor disagreed with your edit, I don't think the accusation vandalism was fair. I also happen to agree with your edit and rationale - abortion is not a USA-specific topic, and I don't see the need to have American stats in the lede. (Full disclosure: I'm not American. Not USian, anyway.) I almost reverted the reversion of your edit, but I thought it best not to get into potential edit-warring on a 1RR page. I would love to hear other editors' opinions. Dawn Bard (talk) 19:08, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The editor's concern about showing recent US numbers has merit, but I don't think it should go in the lead section. Furthermore, the numbers miss large US populations, so they are not as useful as hoped. Binksternet (talk) 19:36, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Country specific data should go in the body of the article. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:54, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

The accusation was unfounded, but that doesn't excuse editwarring by either party. Bold-Revert-Stoptakeadeepbreath-Discussadnauseumwithoutclearresult is the apparent methodology for this article, editors should adapt to that. Perhaps it is time to get busy with forking the US-specific content to a geolocalized article? Certainly US politics have had an undue degree of influence over the present article that needs to be tamed to meet wp:WORLDWIDE. LeadSongDog come howl! 20:06, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Silly me. There's already an article Abortion in the United States. So why is this cruft here?LeadSongDog come howl! 20:16, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Image

Human Embryo (7th week of pregnancy, 5th week p.o.)

Wondering what people think about this image? It is from a reputable pathologist in the USA. Is of the appropriate gestational age. Is an excellent quality image. Would have had appropriate consent obtained. Is not in a gloved hand or on a strange background.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:01, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I wonder how this illustrates abortion as opposed to embryo or tubal pregnancy. The current images are more specific to the topic at hand and not related matters. JJL (talk) 03:37, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
JJL pretty much said what I was thinking. The images in the article right now might not be very exciting, but they do actually depict the article subject. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:53, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A termination of a pregnancy before delivery is an abortion. Thus this is an abortion and one done to save a women's life. IMO it is appropriate. But no strong feelings either way. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:31, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If we can only have one image of what is aborted, then it should be from an induced abortion rather than spontaneous, because most people associate the word "abortion" with the induced variety. Although this image may well show an induced abortion, such an image should be at a typical gestation, whereas this image is much earlier than typical. There was an appropriate image in this article for over a year, removed without consensus, edit-warred ad nauseum, and now subject of an ongoing ArbCom proceeding. Let's wait and see what ArbCom says. Apparently, not only is consensus meaningless here, but we also cannot have an NPOV tag in the article inviting people to comment about this dispute.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:38, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
James, are you sure that ectopic pregnancies are generally considered to be abortions as opposed their own separate category? Williams Obstetrics talks about them in separate (but sequential) chapters. NW (Talk) 18:19, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes if we use the definition of "intra uterine pregnancy" they would not be classified as abortions. However the WHO does classify them as abortions [3] And this article describes an ectopic not being treated due to a complete abortion ban [4] The Catholic church considers a number of treatments for ectopics to be "abortions" [5] The abortion rate is constant between 5-12 weeks.[6] Thus an image at 7 weeks would be fair. This is also a featured image BTW. I consider it to address the concerns raised and would thus support its inclusion in this article. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:26, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Above are drawings at typical gestations when abortion is induced in England. At left is an embryo 4 weeks after fertilization (i.e. 6 weeks LMP). At right is a fetus 4 weeks later. The selected abortion method depends chiefly on the size.
The image suggested by Doc James is at "5 weeks p.o." which is way before average for induced abortion in developed countries, and the average is even later in developing countries. See the bar graph in the article. As such, the image is misleading, and raises concerns about POV-pushing, propaganda, and censorship. Every image that shows the abortus as something other than a non-human-looking clump of cells has been objected to by someone or other at this article, including the innocuous and information-packed image to the right.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:25, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The fetus in the (upper) image is 7 weeks' gestation using standard obstetrical dating from last menstrual period, as the image information makes clear. That's well within the range of gestational age where most abortions are performed in the Western world; I can't speak to the developing world, but would be interested to see reliable statistics (in place of accusations). I'm on the fence about the upper image, mostly because I don't think it's representative of a typical "abortion" (no more than a hydatidiform mole would be typical of "abortion"). MastCell Talk 23:14, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
MastCell, the upper image does not show a fetus. It shows an embryo, perhaps not even halfway past the midpoint of the embryonic stage. This Wikipedia article says that in the U.S. only 18% of induced abortions occur by 7 weeks LMP (i.e. 5 weeks after fertilization). And if the upper image was "in" the seventh week LMP rather than "at" 7 weeks LMP, then it could be as early as 4.1 weeks after fertilization. The fetal stage does not begin until 8 weeks after fertilization, and that transition point is about average for abortion in the western world (the average in England is 7.5 weeks per this Wikipedia article).Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:34, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I stand corrected; embryo is the correct term. If the average abortion is performed at 7.5 weeks gestational age (in England, to take your example), and this embryo is at 7 weeks' gestational age, then perhaps you could explain your objection again? Why do you feel that the embryo in this image isn't developed enough to be representative? MastCell Talk 23:42, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just as you mixed up embryo and fetus, you're mixing up gestational age (LMP) and age from fertilization. The average abortion in England is 9.5 weeks gestational age (LMP) which equals 7.5 weeks from fertilization. The upper image you say is in the 7th week LMP which is the 5th week from fertilization, i.e. between 4 and 5 weeks from fertilization. (The info page for the upper image says it's in "5th week p.o" which may mean it's even less developed than 4 weeks after fertilization.)Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:51, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
When you said 7.5 weeks above, I assumed you were referring to standard obstetrical dating. It would probably help to stick to one set of terminology, preferably that commonly used in obstetrics (last menstrual period). As Doc James notes below, about 36% of induced abortions are performed at or before 7 weeks in the U.S. That seems to me to make the image reasonably "developed" to represent abortion, at least as practiced in the developed Western world. That said, I don't really favor the image because it's from an ectopic pregnancy, which is well outside the "typical" concept of abortion. MastCell Talk 00:18, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes 18% before 7 weeks 18% at 7 weeks. That equals 36%.[7] Never saw this as an issue of propaganda, or censorship. These are harsh accusations when all I was looking for was an image from a reliable source which would have been ethically acquired to address previous concerns raised. Anyway will leave it with you. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:06, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the correct figure is 36% by 7 weeks LMP in the US, then still a substantial majority occurs later than that. Plus the info for the upper image says "5th week p.o." which suggests it may be even more unrepresentative. Keep in mind too that later abortions are more common in China, India, and other developing countries than in developed countries. See Cheng L. “Surgical versus medical methods for second-trimester induced abortion : RHL commentary” (last revised: 1 November 2008). The WHO Reproductive Health Library; Geneva: World Health Organization.[8]

I'm sorry if my concerns about censorship and propaganda seem harsh, but I don't think it's a coincidence that every non-clump-of-cells image suggested for this article has invariably run into accusations of pro-life propaganda, and no coincidence that this article still has no representative image of what's aborted in a typical abortion. AGF has limits, and I can't but believe that the continued absence of such an image is by design. The issues about ethical acquisition were covered during the deletion debate at Wikimedia Commons.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:33, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In Sweden 77% occur 8 weeks and before. [9] And nearly 70% are accomplished with medicine. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:57, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's nice to know, but this Wikipedia article is not about Sweden. If you'll look at the lower image (that you and MastCell have thus far declined to support or even acknowledge), both an abortus at 6 weeks LMP and at 10 weeks LMP are shown. Why is it asking so much to show an abortus that has developed beyond looking like a clump of cells? They're very typical, though earlier abortions are also common in places like Sweden. This Wikipedia article once had an embryo image and also a fetus image. You personally deleted the first, and froze out the second, and now we have to go over this issue yet again. There are obvious reasonable solutions here, but one of them is not to include only a clump-of-cells image that pleases pro-choice activists at this article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:19, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
9-Week Human Embryo from Ectopic Pregnancy (7th week p.o.)
We're really not just limited to these images. There is also File:9-Week Human Embryo from Ectopic Pregnancy.jpg (right, same photographer as the first image), for example, which I believe is right about at the midpoint of all induced abortions. NW (Talk) 01:26, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Appendectomy article doesn't show an appendix, but the Vermiform appendix does. The page on the operation shows an operation being performed plus two post-op images. This is the difference: Images at Abortion should focus on the abortion procedure, as they currently do, and images at Embryo or Fetus on the embryo and fetus. Brain surgery (which redirects to Neurosurgery) shows a picture of a person being operated on, but not a brain; Brain, however, does show a brain. In the Appendectomy and Brain surgery articles you can't even see an appendix of brain. In Heart surgery (redirects to Cardiac surgery) you can make out part of the Heart under the surgeon's hand but can't see the whole heart; compare Heart, which has several images of the heart. In articles on a procedure it's common to have images of the procedure. The embryo picture is a poor fit here. It's not a conspiracy--it's the custom. JJL (talk) 01:10, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
JJL, there are many counterexamples to your examples, such as tonsillectomy. In the case of this abortion article, there is a much stronger rationale for showing what's removed: the removed item is very different depending on when it is removed, the removal technique depends heavily on that difference, and the separate articles do not explain which stages of development correspond to most abortions. If this were a normal article that didn't attract agenda-driven editors, there would be no hesitation about including a simple image like the drawing above, or a pair of abortus images that bracket thr typical gestations for abortion. Since no one has objected to the drawing above, I plan to insert it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:25, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You just heard somebody object to embryo images, in the post immediately above yours. Or perhaps you didn't. MastCell Talk 06:09, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The drawing is not an "embryo picture". It shows a fetus. I think it's pretty clear that all but the most determined editors have been driven away from this article for the time being, and I'm joining them for awhile. It's just too frustrating. So have at it guys.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:29, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In fact Tonsillectomy is much the same--there are 4 images at the bottom that illustrate the procedure, from pre-op, the removed tonsils, immediately post-op, and later post-op. The image of the removed tonsils is in the context of the surgical procedure. The line drawing is somewhat on target but, as with your remarks above on Sweden, this seems to be focused on England which is insufficiently global. JJL (talk) 14:34, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The two photos are very good but they belong in the fetus and embyro articles not here. Like I've said before there are many things involved in an abortion -- the fetus, the placenta, the pregnant woman, her uterus, the doctor, the tools or drugs used. Showing any of these things in the Article wouldn't really let someone understand abortion better. They would just take up space. And the fact that people are only calling for this article to show fetuses -- not placentas or pregnant women or doctors -- says a lot about the main reason such pictures are wanted in the article. As for the cartoon ask yourself how many encyclopedias have pictures like that. Really this looks like throwing stuff at the wall to see what sticks to me. Well that's not a very productive use of everyone's time. People really need to let this thing rest. The more this keeps getting brought up the clearer it becomes what it's all about. Friend of the Facts (talk) 05:25, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"The more this keeps getting brought up the clearer it becomes what it's all about." Well, you can say that again. And the arguments for these various photos in the article do not seem to need to make one iota of sense - none at all - just keep making them over and over till (it sometimes feels like) the end of time. When I pointed out that a medical journal-type photo of a fetus would hardly show one that was hand-held, I was told it needed to be hand-held because it was so delicate, and furthermore, lots and lots of medical photos showed a hand in the picture. When asked for some examples of all these photos, one was produced along with several of procedures being done with an instrument in-hand. Then it was claimed that the hand was important to show the size of the fetus, as though the science community had not yet discovered the ruler. And on and on. But then to complain of frustration and accuse the editors that do not share their somewhat odd (to say the least) point of view as being agenda-driven and to suggest that they are driving away editors... Gandydancer (talk) 16:00, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reference 31

Can anyone else locate the following reference? It's currently in the article as reference 31:

  • Potts, Malcolm (2002). "History of Contraception". Gynecology and Obstetrics 6 (8).

Gynecology and Obstetrics appears to be a legitimate journal, but it does not match up to the reference at all. In 2002, they were on volumes 266 and 267, not 6. Potts has apparently written an article titled "History of Contraception" (co-written with his wife, I believe, per our article on him), but that was published in 2008, not 2002. Can anyone reconcile all of this? NW (Talk) 04:34, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's most likely this. Not sure where the confusion over its provenance originates, but it seems to be from the Journal of Family Planning and Reproductive Health Care. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:51, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. Well, if it works, it works.  Fixed. NW (Talk) 04:56, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Abortion and mental health

I just undid this edit. The reason I did so was because the text fails to meet Wikipedia:Summary style, which states that if a section is meant to be a summary of a subarticle (as this one is), the paragraph should be an adequate representation of the subarticle. It isn't. NW (Talk) 14:52, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The edit was also problematic in other regards. The quote was far larger than the content text, and much of it was irrelevant dental discussion. It was taken from an editor's frontspiece to the journal issue rather than the review article itself, which was:
It remains to be seen what response that article's analysis will get when it is published, but it will doubtless recieve careful scrutiny by the readers of that journal. In the meantime, wp:NODEADLINE, we can wait for them to comment in coming issues. LeadSongDog come howl! 16:16, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Would you care to comment at Talk:Abortion_and_mental_health#Coleman.27s_new_meta-analysis? NW (Talk) 16:23, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Coleman work appears to build on Rachel MacNair's 2005 Perpetration-Induced Traumatic Stress: The Psychological Consequences of Killing. MacNair discusses many forms of killing including abortion (she was the president of Feminists for Life and the founder of the Susan B. Anthony List.) She talks about the emotional toll of performing abortions, a stressor for mental health problems. Binksternet (talk) 17:18, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Coleman has also been criticized by the APA for the low quality of her studies, and subsequent analyses of the same data used in one particular study have been unable to reproduce her results. We shouldn't be citing her as a source in a summary article. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:14, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Coleman's approach to "quantitative synthesis and analysis" of the literature is quite curious. Of the 22 studies that met her inclusion criteria for analysis, 12 of them (at my quick count) were authored by Priscilla Coleman and/or her close collaborator David C. Reardon. So more than half of the papers fed into Coleman's "meta-analysis" are actually her own work, or that of her close collaborators. This is basically a meta-analysis of her own work, and suggests that the inclusion criteria for this analysis are questionable, to say the least. The analysis grossly overweights Coleman's publications, especially since they tend to be accorded very little weight by independent expert bodies. MastCell Talk 04:42, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have put the summary information of Coleman in the footnote. Geremia (talk) 07:15, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Um, no please? If Coleman's work is inappropriate to be added as plain text, it is also inappropriate to add it as a footnote. Please revert until you gain consensus for such an addition. NW (Talk) 07:19, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The edit also added a contributory copyvio in the archiveurl.LeadSongDog come howl! 17:17, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The citation was published in the British Journal of Psychiatry, which is a peer-reviewed reliable source. Stating that "No scientific research has demonstrated that abortion is a cause of poor mental health in the general population" is not only uncited, but is a false in light of the above study. I've readded mention of the statement to satisfy WP:NPOV. Apparently, others here feel the same way. Thanks, AnupamTalk 18:20, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I did not realize that this article was under a 1RR restriction. I've reverted my edit, although I still feel that it should be considered by the community here. Thanks, AnupamTalk 18:24, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:REDFLAG implies that we should treat such claims that go against the current scientific consensus as requiring exceptional evidence. A study that primarily uses the author or her close collaborator's studies is probably not one of them (take a look at the relative risks of the various Coleman and Reardon papers and everyone else). Now, maybe the scientific community will disagree with me and say that this new paper is a game-changer. But that sounds unlikely. For the time being, we should not include the information, but should wait to see whether Coleman's paper is accepted by the scientific community at large. NW (Talk) 18:32, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here is some feedback from The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists [10] Gandydancer (talk) 21:57, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I concur. JJL (talk) 03:34, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know who "anonymous" is purporting to speak in behalf sf the RCOG, but on what does s/he base the claim that "this research does not fully examine is if these women had pre-existing mental health complications"? Coleman certainly does take into account pre-existing conditions. Thanks Geremia (talk) 06:33, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If one removed Coleman's own studies from her analysis, do you think there would still be a significant relationship between abortion and mental health outcomes? In my personal opinion, a responsible researcher should have addressed that question in the paper, and a responsible peer reviewer should have demanded that it be addressed. But that's just me. A critical reader could just as easily interpret this paper to show that researchers have consistently found no impact of abortion on mental health, but that Coleman and Reardon alone, for some reason, consistently manage to find a correlation.

It's interesting to view Coleman's paper in light of PMID 19014789, a 2008 systematic review from the Johns Hopkins group addressing the same question. The Hopkins meta-analysis actually took the step of assessing the methodologic strength of each included study, rather than simply pooling them all without regard for their quality. The results are instructive; when studies were assessed according to widely accepted measures of quality, Coleman's and Reardon's scored fairly low (in fact, the poorer the quality of the study, the more likely it was to report a correlation between abortion and mental health; make of that what you will). Of course, if you just pool all the papers without regard for their quality, as Coleman did, your mileage may vary. MastCell Talk 21:45, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant headings

Two separate headings titled "Unsafe abortion" is unnecessary.130.132.111.254 (talk) 18:21, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed.130.132.111.254 (talk) 18:25, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Abortion&oldid=448482155"